A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1011  
Old April 18th 09, 08:57 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:


Well, he has produced zero so far.

Hopefully he will post his equations and their derivations. If he is
having problems solving his triple integrals, I am sure somebody here
can help.



It obvious I have the solution if I rendered a graph.


No, it means you entered something into a plotting program.
Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used
to plot it is wrong.

We might be able to:

* Provide a full, analytic solution using techniques unknown to Phil
(nobody know every single trick for solving integrals)

* Provide a full, analytic solution for some special cases, such as
highly symmetric configurations of masses (eg spherically symmetry as
Schwartzschild did for GR, or 2D solutions only)

Even if we can't do this, we/I can definitely provide a numeric
solution for specific test configurations that have already been
experimentally tested.

Its then simply a matter of looking at a few experimental results, and
seeing how well FR agrees with what is actually observed, and we can
see if FR is complete crap or if Bouchard is a genius.

I await his formulas, and an opportunity to practice my calculus skills.



The following integration should be very easy:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili.../fr-test-1.pdf


That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does
not read anything before wandering off into his delusions.
It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading
a text box.

But I do have an interesting question that follows.


Why is phil happy being wrong?
  #1012  
Old April 18th 09, 09:44 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:


No, it means you entered something into a plotting program.
Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used
to plot it is wrong.



The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square
distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light
factors.


Well, no they do not represent the inside the sphere solution.
This is a standard textbox equation and you are just looking
pretty silly in ignoring it and presenting something
totally unrelated.

That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does
not read anything before wandering off into his delusions.
It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading
a text box.



Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already
know. Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing:
http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1

Why is phil happy being wrong?



It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much
in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder.

  #1013  
Old April 18th 09, 09:46 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:


No, it means you entered something into a plotting program.
Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used
to plot it is wrong.



The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square
distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light
factors.

That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does
not read anything before wandering off into his delusions.
It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading
a text box.



Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already
know.


No, what reasons are those?

Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing:
http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1


You see that there are lots of cranks like you. For some reason,
lots of cranks hate Einstein and are jealous of him.

Why is phil happy being wrong?



It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much
in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder.


As opposed to FR which is just one blunder.
  #1014  
Old April 18th 09, 10:53 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Apr 18, 12:46*pm, doug wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:


No, it means you entered something into a plotting program.
Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used
to plot it is wrong.


The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square
distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light
factors.


That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does
not read anything before wandering off into his delusions.
It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading
a text box.


Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already
know.


No, what reasons are those?

* Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing:

http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1


You see that there are lots of cranks like you. For some reason,
lots of cranks hate Einstein and are jealous of him.


Have you noticed he only references vehemently anti-Einstein
literature? How long till he stars ranting about Crothers? That'll be
fun.

I find it - to no end - quite personally amusing that a CS guy with a
minimum of education in physics and mathematics managed to find (!)
and read (!!) one of Einsteins original books on the subject, and so
completely misunderstand it. And to simultaneously have the arrogance
and stupidity to not pick up another book!

Plus he doesn't understand spherical coordinates. Which is funny.




Why is phil happy being wrong?


It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much
in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder.


As opposed to FR which is just one blunder.


  #1015  
Old April 18th 09, 11:59 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 18, 12:46 pm, doug wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


No, it means you entered something into a plotting program.
Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used
to plot it is wrong.


The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square
distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light
factors.


That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does
not read anything before wandering off into his delusions.
It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading
a text box.


Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already
know.


No, what reasons are those?

Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing:


http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1


You see that there are lots of cranks like you. For some reason,
lots of cranks hate Einstein and are jealous of him.



Have you noticed he only references vehemently anti-Einstein
literature? How long till he stars ranting about Crothers? That'll be
fun.

I find it - to no end - quite personally amusing that a CS guy with a
minimum of education in physics and mathematics managed to find (!)
and read (!!) one of Einsteins original books on the subject, and so
completely misunderstand it. And to simultaneously have the arrogance
and stupidity to not pick up another book!

Plus he doesn't understand spherical coordinates. Which is funny.


Well, spherical coordinates is math not cs. His flailing is pretty
funny. He cannot be serious and be smart enough to walk without
falling down.





Why is phil happy being wrong?


It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much
in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder.


As opposed to FR which is just one blunder.



  #1016  
Old April 19th 09, 12:28 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

doug wrote:

Well, spherical coordinates is math not cs. His flailing is pretty
funny. He cannot be serious and be smart enough to walk without
falling down.


Well I submitted the question I was asked for and I am expecting the
same graph. You have all the resources in the world so I do not see why
intimidation is the only solution you can pull out.
  #1017  
Old April 19th 09, 01:17 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]

Concerning special relativity, you have neither studied special
relativity, nor are you able to work any special relativity physics
problems, say from a junior level textbook. Furthermore, you claim
(without any merit) that some of the derived equations of the
Lorentz transform, in particular, are incorrect.


Lorentz transformations was irresponsibly applied to Special Relativity.
Annalen der Physik wasn't any better in publishing idiocies having no
reference, plagiarized and written by unknown students.

You haven't a clue about general relativity, and cannot calculate
the effects on satellite clocks, nor understand the differences in
the relativistic effects on satellite clocks at, say 202 km above
the earth's surface as compared to, say 20000 km above the earth's
surface.


Doug's intimidation seems to affect evidence of the previous posts.

You ignore the excellent resources provided to you by posters on
USENET, and display defiant, obstinate behavior toward those
attempting to give you some guidance.

The big question, is why this behavior on your part?


Well there are many misleading cranks around so you have to rely on
evidence only in those cases. You seem to silently dismiss the K Meson
Decay rate which do not fit with the current predictions:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml
  #1018  
Old April 19th 09, 02:38 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Apr 18, 4:17*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]

* Concerning special relativity, you have neither studied special
* relativity, nor are you able to work any special relativity physics
* problems, say from a junior level textbook. Furthermore, you claim
* (without any merit) that some of the derived equations of the
* Lorentz transform, in particular, are incorrect.


Lorentz transformations was irresponsibly applied to Special Relativity.
* *Annalen der Physik wasn't any better in publishing idiocies having no
reference, plagiarized and written by unknown students.


You know what repeating crank talking points makes you? A crank.


* You haven't a clue about general relativity, and cannot calculate
* the effects on satellite clocks, nor understand the differences in
* the relativistic effects on satellite clocks at, say 202 km above
* the earth's surface as compared to, say 20000 km above the earth's
* surface.


Doug's intimidation seems to affect evidence of the previous posts.

* You ignore the excellent resources provided to you by posters on
* USENET, and display defiant, obstinate behavior toward those
* attempting to give you some guidance.


* The big question, is why this behavior on your part?


Well there are many misleading cranks around so you have to rely on
evidence only in those cases. *You seem to silently dismiss the K Meson
Decay rate which do not fit with the current predictions:http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml


SR isn't a theory of particles. Try something relevant.

Anyone buy your book yet, phil?
  #1019  
Old April 19th 09, 04:46 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:


Well, spherical coordinates is math not cs. His flailing is pretty
funny. He cannot be serious and be smart enough to walk without
falling down.



Well I submitted the question I was asked for and I am expecting the
same graph. You have all the resources in the world so I do not see why
intimidation is the only solution you can pull out.


Pointing out your mistakes is not intimidation. That is what teachers
are supposed to do to help students. You have been making very
elementary mistakes and I am trying to help you not look so stupid.
For instance, the inside the sphere solution is taught in basic
physics classes and in E&M. You prefer to look stupid rather
than study. That is your choice.
  #1020  
Old April 19th 09, 04:48 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]

Concerning special relativity, you have neither studied special
relativity, nor are you able to work any special relativity physics
problems, say from a junior level textbook. Furthermore, you claim
(without any merit) that some of the derived equations of the
Lorentz transform, in particular, are incorrect.



Lorentz transformations was irresponsibly applied to Special Relativity.


More ignorance from phil. You really have no idea of how relativity
was developed at all.

Annalen der Physik wasn't any better in publishing idiocies having no
reference, plagiarized and written by unknown students.

You haven't a clue about general relativity, and cannot calculate
the effects on satellite clocks, nor understand the differences in
the relativistic effects on satellite clocks at, say 202 km above
the earth's surface as compared to, say 20000 km above the earth's
surface.



Doug's intimidation seems to affect evidence of the previous posts.


Pointing out your mistakes is helping you. I have no idea why
you consider it intimidationn. Maybe you want to go cry to your
mother about it.

You ignore the excellent resources provided to you by posters on
USENET, and display defiant, obstinate behavior toward those
attempting to give you some guidance.

The big question, is why this behavior on your part?



Well there are many misleading cranks around so you have to rely on
evidence only in those cases. You seem to silently dismiss the K Meson
Decay rate which do not fit with the current predictions:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml


You have not understood what was said in the article. It is clear you
do not understand statistics either.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Finite Relativism: Review Request Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 519 September 25th 12 12:26 AM
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 0 January 28th 09 10:54 AM
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 4 January 26th 09 10:00 PM
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 January 1st 09 04:20 PM
BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 July 13th 08 01:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.